In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1913)

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1913
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 3
Leaf #:
000168
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 21, 2023
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

1394 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. Q. Did you receive many letters from exhibitors complaining of the conditions in the business? A. I did. Q. Were these letters which I have just offered in evidence, a fair sample of the complaints received respecting certain phases of the business? A. They were. Mr. Grosvenor. I object to all this line of examination on the same ground that I objected to the introduction of the letters. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Did you receive, and by you I mean the Motion Picture Patents Company, letters from time to time, complaining of the methods of distribution of motion pictures, complaining that the system of dealing in motion pictures was not satisfactory and led to unequal treatment of exhibitors? A. I did. Q. And did you from time to time receive letters suggesting that some change be effected in certain phases of the distribution of motion pictures? A. I did. Q. I show you a letter dated Toledo, Ohio, August 15th, 1910, signed Kent Film Service Company, and accompanied by a letter dated Tiffin, Ohio, August 10th, 1910, signed Hal B. Clarke, and ask you if these letters were received by you? A. These letters were received by me. Q. Did they come at the same time and in the same envelope? A. Yes, they came attached together. Mr. Kingsley : I offer them in evidence. Mr. Grosvenor : Same objection. The papers offered are received in evidence and marked "Defendants' Exhibit No. 79," and are as follows: